Motorists & Cyclists Be Aware

[MB62]

Just attended a wee gathering up at Little France RIE where the police are there along with a group called Street Ahead, to talk about safer cycling and motor awareness. The police I was talking said they are about to start a wee campaign targeting motorists who don't stop before the cycle boxes at traffic lights, and cyclists who ignore red lights (that'll be 99% of them then).

Motorists are liable to a £60 fine and three penalty points whilst cyclists can be fined £30 for failing to adhere to proper codes.

I clarified with the officer if cycling on pavements is legal or not and he confimred it is ILLEGAL and they are hoping to be able to issue on the spot fines of £30 for offenders. I pointed out to him that if this is indeed illegal, why no action was taken against a cyclists doing just this last week on London Road at the Artisan pub, actually cycling AROUND TWO POLICE OFFICERS who were heading towards him at the time? He was suitably embarrassed of course and give no reason why the officers failed to stop the culprit.

Anyway, motorists and cyclist be aware, the police are on the lookout in the next week or so for those failing to obey the rules of the road (and pavement) on this matter.

[easty]

Just attended a wee gathering up at Little France RIE where the police are there along with a group called Street Ahead, to talk about safer cycling and motor awareness. The police I was talking said they are about to start a wee campaign targeting motorists who don't stop before the cycle boxes at traffic lights, and cyclists who ignore red lights (that'll be 99% of them then).

Motorists are liable to a £60 fine and three penalty points whilst cyclists can be fined £30 for failing to adhere to proper codes.

I clarified with the officer if cycling on pavements is legal or not and he confimred it is ILLEGAL and they are hoping to be able to issue on the spot fines of £30 for offenders. I pointed out to him that if this is indeed illegal, why no action was taken against a cyclists doing just this last week on London Road at the Artisan pub, actually cycling AROUND TWO POLICE OFFICERS who were heading towards him at the time? He was suitably embarrassed of course and give no reason why the officers failed to stop the culprit.

Anyway, motorists and cyclist be aware, the police are on the lookout in the next week or so for those failing to obey the rules of the road (and pavement) on this matter.

Considering you dont need a licence to cycle about, and as such haven't sat a test. And seeing as they don't 'advertise' the fact that it's illegal to cycle on the pavement, I think it would be extremely harsh to go handing out £30 fines.

[RyeSloan]

Just attended a wee gathering up at Little France RIE where the police are there along with a group called Street Ahead, to talk about safer cycling and motor awareness. The police I was talking said they are about to start a wee campaign targeting motorists who don't stop before the cycle boxes at traffic lights, and cyclists who ignore red lights (that'll be 99% of them then).

Motorists are liable to a £60 fine and three penalty points whilst cyclists can be fined £30 for failing to adhere to proper codes.

I clarified with the officer if cycling on pavements is legal or not and he confimred it is ILLEGAL and they are hoping to be able to issue on the spot fines of £30 for offenders. I pointed out to him that if this is indeed illegal, why no action was taken against a cyclists doing just this last week on London Road at the Artisan pub, actually cycling AROUND TWO POLICE OFFICERS who were heading towards him at the time? He was suitably embarrassed of course and give no reason why the officers failed to stop the culprit.

Anyway, motorists and cyclist be aware, the police are on the lookout in the next week or so for those failing to obey the rules of the road (and pavement) on this matter.

Excellent use of finite resources.

You also have to ask why cycling on pavements is illegal...it seems impossible to enforce for starters.

[--------]

Considering you dont need a licence to cycle about, and as such haven't sat a test. And seeing as they don't 'advertise' the fact that it's illegal to cycle on the pavement, I think it would be extremely harsh to go handing out £30 fines.


No it wouldn't. You don't hear a cyclist coming up behind you when you're walking, and if you happen to step the wrong way, he can do you serious damage. There's a path for cyclists and pedestrians runs parallel to the new Airdrie-Bathgate rail line, which is one place I walk my doggie.

I've lost count of the number of times either Lucy or I have just missed being creamed by some moron on a bike who doesn't have a bell, doesn't call out, and zips past missing us by a couple of inches.

But I agree with SiMar - I can't see how they'll enforce the regs against the cyclists - they'll get the motorists all right though.

And BTW, it's clearly in the Highway Code that it's illegal to cycle on the pavement. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. And most cyclists I know are pretty ignorant.

[derekHFC]

And most cyclists I know are pretty ignorant.

Yikes, thats a bit sterotypical surely??

These boxes are called advanced stop lines and as far as i was aware, cars could stop in them, if the lights changed after they had passed the initial stop line, but before they passed the ASL. Maybe i'm wrong, but i thought you could stop in them, if it were safe to do so.

[Future17]

Considering you dont need a licence to cycle about, and as such haven't sat a test. And seeing as they don't 'advertise' the fact that it's illegal to cycle on the pavement, I think it would be extremely harsh to go handing out £30 fines.

:agree:

Whilst it is illegal, if you were to take it to court, the chances of being convicted are infinitesimal.

[--------]

Yikes, thats a bit sterotypical surely??

These boxes are called advanced stop lines and as far as i was aware, cars could stop in them, if the lights changed after they had passed the initial stop line, but before they passed the ASL. Maybe i'm wrong, but i thought you could stop in them, if it were safe to do so.


Maybe I'm just meeting the wrong cyclists, but if I drove my car with the same disregard for people around me as the vast majority of cyclists I encounter, I'd have a higher kill-count than Ted Bundy.

It works both ways - I have a responsibility to look out for cyclists, and to drive in those sections of the carriageway designated for the use of private motorists. They have a reponsibility to stay in their cycle lanes, and to use enough commonsense to realise that they're not the easiest to see at times, even when you're looking out for them.

AND to remember that when they're among pedestrians, the usual situation's reversed - they move very quickly, very quietly, and so they're the ones who should be looking out for the pedstrians, not the other way round.

[lapsedhibee]

Maybe I'm just meeting the wrong cyclists, but if I drove my car with the same disregard for people around me as the vast majority of cyclists I encounter, I'd have a higher kill-count than Ted Bundy.
Nah. What you're missing out of your analysis is that cyclists have the same self-interest in missing you by a couple of inches as you have in them missing you. A cyclist who runs into you or your dug is likely to come off just as badly as either of you (that's why they wear helmets). Drivers don't have an equivalent vested interest in missing pedestrians.

[heretoday]

I actually don't mind cyclists on the pavement provided they use common sense and consideration and keep the speed down - also warn pedestrians of their approach. What happened to the bicycle bell?

You are as likely to be inconvenienced by mums pushing these huge kiddie chairs on the sidewalk as by bikes!

[speedy_gonzales]

No it wouldn't. You don't hear a cyclist coming up behind you when you're walking, and if you happen to step the wrong way, he can do you serious damage. There's a path for cyclists and pedestrians runs parallel to the new Airdrie-Bathgate rail line, which is one place I walk my doggie.

I've lost count of the number of times either Lucy or I have just missed being creamed by some moron on a bike who doesn't have a bell, doesn't call out, and zips past missing us by a couple of inches.

But I agree with SiMar - I can't see how they'll enforce the regs against the cyclists - they'll get the motorists all right though.

And BTW, it's clearly in the Highway Code that it's illegal to cycle on the pavement. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. And most cyclists I know are pretty ignorant.
I assume the doggie is on a leash? I walk a fair bit along the canal, not just in town but way out to places like Bishopbriggs, along with the new shared use path alongside the A2B line,,the amount of near misses I've seen with cyclists giving peds a wide berth only for a terrier type dog to go from one side to the other whilst on a retractable leash. The cyclist either slows or stops but still gets a torrent of abuse, the only person to blame is the person with the remote control over the dog!

[Holmesdale Hibs]

There's a big difference between a cyclist breaking a traffic law safely, say going slowly through a red light when no one is there, and a cyclist acting dangerously and potentially causing an injury. The police should issue fines that are proportional to the offence.

I cycle to work most days (through London, not Edinburgh) and agree that dangerous cycling is an issue, particularly amongst Boris Bike cyclists but that's a different issue. Many cyclists are arrogant and would like to see more of them being fined. They give the many good cyclists a bad name.

Motorist parking in the cycle bay is annoying but it's a lesser crime that dangerous cycling because it isn't going to injure anyone. A £30 fine for that, if that is what is being proposed, seems harsh.

[Eyrie]

There's a big difference between a cyclist breaking a traffic law safely, say going slowly through a red light when no one is there, and a cyclist acting dangerously and potentially causing an injury. The police should issue fines that are proportional to the offence.

There would be an outcry if car drivers tried to go through red lights at deserted junctions. The traffic laws are there to be obeyed by both drivers and cyclists. As a former cyclist myself I'm both conscious of the need to be careful near them and horrified by some of their antics.

[Hibrandenburg]

Here all cyclists are treated the same as car drivers. For example, if they are caught drunk in charge of a bicycle then the will have their driving licence removed or be refused one in the future. It's also forbidden for anyone over the age of 12 to ride a bike on the pavement. Saying that, the roads over here are much better equipped for cyclists, most roads have a cycle path and most crossings even have special traffic lights just for cyclists.
I often see the police out and about carrying out spot checks on the standard of bikes and writing out tickets for cyclists who ignore the rules. It would be interesting to see a statistic on accidents involving cyclist in the UK compared to Germany.

[Saorsa]

No it wouldn't. You don't hear a cyclist coming up behind you when you're walking, and if you happen to step the wrong way, he can do you serious damage. There's a path for cyclists and pedestrians runs parallel to the new Airdrie-Bathgate rail line, which is one place I walk my doggie.

I've lost count of the number of times either Lucy or I have just missed being creamed by some moron on a bike who doesn't have a bell, doesn't call out, and zips past missing us by a couple of inches.

But I agree with SiMar - I can't see how they'll enforce the regs against the cyclists - they'll get the motorists all right though.

And BTW, it's clearly in the Highway Code that it's illegal to cycle on the pavement. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. And most cyclists I know are pretty ignorant.And I've lost count of the number of times I've come across dog owners who let their dogs off the leash to run about wildly on these shared use paths. They are for cyclists and walkers and these people who choose tae walk their dogs on these paths should have their dogs under control at all times. If they want tae let them of the leash take them in tae a park. The world is full of selfish people and they're no all cyclists and they're no all dog owners either, some of whom leave their animals mess all over these paths.

[lapsedhibee]

There would be an outcry if car drivers tried to go through red lights at deserted junctions.
I've done that. No outcry though - perhaps because there's been no one there to see it? :dunno:

[RyeSloan]

Here all cyclists are treated the same as car drivers. For example, if they are caught drunk in charge of a bicycle then the will have their driving licence removed or be refused one in the future. It's also forbidden for anyone over the age of 12 to ride a bike on the pavement. Saying that, the roads over here are much better equipped for cyclists, most roads have a cycle path and most crossings even have special traffic lights just for cyclists.
I often see the police out and about carrying out spot checks on the standard of bikes and writing out tickets for cyclists who ignore the rules. It would be interesting to see a statistic on accidents involving cyclist in the UK compared to Germany.

http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/734/cycling/cycling-rates-by-country/

[Baw Baggio]

No it wouldn't. You don't hear a cyclist coming up behind you when you're walking, and if you happen to step the wrong way, he can do you serious damage. There's a path for cyclists and pedestrians runs parallel to the new Airdrie-Bathgate rail line, which is one place I walk my doggie.

I've lost count of the number of times either Lucy or I have just missed being creamed by some moron on a bike who doesn't have a bell, doesn't call out, and zips past missing us by a couple of inches.

But I agree with SiMar - I can't see how they'll enforce the regs against the cyclists - they'll get the motorists all right though.

And BTW, it's clearly in the Highway Code that it's illegal to cycle on the pavement. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. And most cyclists I know are pretty ignorant.

I use shared paths, as a cyclist and as a dog walker, and I encounter many more ******** dog walkers than ******** cyclists. Waaaaay more.....

[Hibrandenburg]

http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/734/cycling/cycling-rates-by-country/

Shocking statistic. Thanks.

[CropleyWasGod]

The cyclist/motorist debate really polarises people.

I am both...probably equally. There are indeed ignorant cyclists.... and I never tire of pulling them up for giving the majority of us a bad name. Good cyclists, like good drivers, are very rarely noticed.

And I do have a bell. Many walkers have thanked me for that.

It's the dogs, though, that scare me more than cars. Car drivers are, in the main, predictable. Dogs aren't.


Like anything else, though, the trick is in spotting potential danger before it happens.

[Holmesdale Hibs]

There would be an outcry if car drivers tried to go through red lights at deserted junctions. The traffic laws are there to be obeyed by both drivers and cyclists. As a former cyclist myself I'm both conscious of the need to be careful near them and horrified by some of their antics.

True, but there are different levels of punishment for breaking different driving laws. There should be the same for cyclists so the most dangerous ones get the most severe punishment.

[Holmesdale Hibs]

It's the dogs, though, that scare me more than cars. Car drivers are, in the main, predictable. Dogs aren't.



Agree with this. I hate ****ing dogs more than all the bad cyclists and drivers combined. Some even more than hearts fans.

[MB62]

Agree with this. I hate ****ing dogs more than all the bad cyclists and drivers combined. Some even more than hearts fans.

Me too, although Yam cyclists with dogs with them are without the worlds worst. :wink:

[--------]

I assume the doggie is on a leash? I walk a fair bit along the canal, not just in town but way out to places like Bishopbriggs, along with the new shared use path alongside the A2B line,,the amount of near misses I've seen with cyclists giving peds a wide berth only for a terrier type dog to go from one side to the other whilst on a retractable leash. The cyclist either slows or stops but still gets a torrent of abuse, the only person to blame is the person with the remote control over the dog!


The dog is under control - she always is. Her lead is long enough for me to have the loop in one hand, the lead across the front of my body, and my other hand on the lead about 1/3 the way down. We still take our lives in our hands some days.

Retractable leashes are for people who either won't or can't train their dogs to walk with them. I wouldn't have one in the house. The only thing they do is allow a dog-owner who can't get the dog to do what it's told to keep the dog in the same county as himself or herself. When I see someone coming with a dog on the end of one of these I call Lucy in, put her lead on her, and wait until the other dog and owner has passed. They're as bad as cyclists.

If a dog will not return to you when called, that dog is out of control. If you need a retractable long leash to keep hold of your dog, that dog is out of control. If I see or hear a cyclist coming - all they have to do is ring a their bell if they have one (they should) or give a shout - if Lucy's off the elad all I have to do is call her to get down and stay, and she will. She ignores sheep, cattle and horses - once again a matter of training.

And training a dog isn't a matter of rocket science, just common sense and persistence.

I admit that once I'm off the cycle track I let the dog run - she's a Border Collie, so she's considerably more intelligent than the general run of the human population, and she returns to me when called. She isn't the problem. Nor am I.

It's the cyclists. Even off the cycle track we've nearly been run down a couple of times.

[lapsedhibee]

Even off the cycle track we've nearly been run down.

Man up ffs! If a cyclist misses you by two inches it's because he/she's deliberately making skilled use of the planet's resources (space). If a cyclist actually hits and kills you (never gonnae happen btw), then come back here and complain. :greengrin

[--------]

Man up ffs! If a cyclist misses you by two inches it's because he/she's deliberately making skilled use of the planet's resources (space). If a cyclist actually hits and kills you (never gonnae happen btw), then come back here and complain. :greengrin


If I'm walking, unaware that a cyclist is coming up behind me at speed, and he chooses to buzz past me that close when he has the whole width of the cycle track to give me space, then that's him being irresponsible, even bullying. If I got that close to him (using the planet's resources and all that) when he's on his bike and I'm in my car, I would say that that was reckless and inconsiderate. It might also make him fall of his bike and hurt himself - which would be my fault.

But thank you for the assurance that a cyclist's never going to hit and kill me - I take it the same assurance doesn't extend to him, her or it hitting me and injuring me?

Personally, I think the whole bunch of them have a lycra fetish.

[lapsedhibee]

But thank you for the assurance that a cyclist's never going to hit and kill me - I take it the same assurance doesn't extend to him, her or it hitting me and injuring me?

Personally, I think the whole bunch of them have a lycra fetish.

Think cyclists are more at risk from you than you are from them. They won't run into you because it hurts them. Agree it's very bad manners to buzz you, and those who do should be thrashed to within two inches of their lives, but dangerous - nah, not really.

Lycra fetish for sure, and look out for the dainty wee bootees which seem to be gaining popularity (though probably not among the rude buzzer element).

[RyeSloan]

The dog is under control - she always is. Her lead is long enough for me to have the loop in one hand, the lead across the front of my body, and my other hand on the lead about 1/3 the way down. We still take our lives in our hands some days.

Retractable leashes are for people who either won't or can't train their dogs to walk with them. I wouldn't have one in the house. The only thing they do is allow a dog-owner who can't get the dog to do what it's told to keep the dog in the same county as himself or herself. When I see someone coming with a dog on the end of one of these I call Lucy in, put her lead on her, and wait until the other dog and owner has passed. They're as bad as cyclists.

If a dog will not return to you when called, that dog is out of control. If you need a retractable long leash to keep hold of your dog, that dog is out of control. If I see or hear a cyclist coming - all they have to do is ring a their bell if they have one (they should) or give a shout - if Lucy's off the elad all I have to do is call her to get down and stay, and she will. She ignores sheep, cattle and horses - once again a matter of training.

And training a dog isn't a matter of rocket science, just common sense and persistence.

I admit that once I'm off the cycle track I let the dog run - she's a Border Collie, so she's considerably more intelligent than the general run of the human population, and she returns to me when called. She isn't the problem. Nor am I.

It's the cyclists. Even off the cycle track we've nearly been run down a couple of times.

Not all people who use retractable leads have 'out of control dogs'...what a strange comment.

[speedy_gonzales]

Not all people who use retractable leads have 'out of control dogs'...what a strange comment.
Then why the need for the extending leash? If the dog is under control there's no need to have it tied to you when it's 20 feet away.
I'm pretty much in agreement with Doddie when it comes to dogs. Dogs are pretty easy to train, it's in their nature to want to be dominated and conform to pack rules. If you have a dog you should, in my opinion, be confident that when it is off the leash it will come back to you, instantly when called, regardless of the distraction. If you cannot say that with confidence then it should not be off the leash, retractable leads are not good at reinforcing control. The dog knows it's on a leash, you let it out then reign it back at will, the dog is none the wiser?!?

[--------]

Not all people who use retractable leads have 'out of control dogs'...what a strange comment.


Then why the need for the extending leash? If the dog is under control there's no need to have it tied to you when it's 20 feet away.
I'm pretty much in agreement with Doddie when it comes to dogs. Dogs are pretty easy to train, it's in their nature to want to be dominated and conform to pack rules. If you have a dog you should, in my opinion, be confident that when it is off the leash it will come back to you, instantly when called, regardless of the distraction. If you cannot say that with confidence then it should not be off the leash, retractable leads are not good at reinforcing control. The dog knows it's on a leash, you let it out then reign it back at will, the dog is none the wiser?!?

What SG said - if you need to have the dog on a 20-foot tether to keep it within sight, you don't have control of the dog. And if you're not the boss of the dog, the dog will be the boss of you. That's the way their minds work.

I admit I've been stirring it a bit on this thread - cyclists aren't (quite) as bad as I'm making out. :wink:

But I do have a lot of sympathy for the cyclist who encounters the prat walking on one side of the cycle track, with a dog on an extending tether (they're not leads - a lead gives you control of the dog) wandering away off to the other side of the track and the tether, helpfully made from invisible black nylon, stretched across the track just waiting to put him on his face.

And they're a total pain in the neck when you meet them out with your own dog. "He just wants to play ..." :rolleyes:

[Bishop Hibee]

I'd prefer them to concentrate on the drug deals and prostitution that goes on in broad daylight around the Links first please.

[ginger_rice]

Personally, I think the whole bunch of them have a lycra fetish.

That's the crowd I have an issue with, (30's to 40's predominantly male) especially at weekends when they ride around en-masse three abreast like they are on the Tour de France.

The "I have as much right to be on the road as you" brigade.

That particular crowd even refuse to use cycle paths and lanes, choosing instead to ride in the middle of the road, holding other road users (who have paid for the privilege) up. They also lack the decency to use hand signals and to give way properly.

I also once had one, male screaming at me "get oot ma ******g way" when walking along the pavement one day in Stirling!!

Having said that I do think that every time a new road is built it should have cycle lanes as in Holland Germany automatically included in the build.

BTW this rant is not aimed at the lone cyclist heading to work each day on his/her bike, who rides in a safe manner observing the highway code.

[Kato]

You are as likely to be inconvenienced by mums pushing these huge kiddie chairs on the sidewalk as by bikes!


What makes your convenience more important than a mum with a huge kiddie chair thingmy?


The last encounter I had with a nutty cyclist (they're not all nutty) was a guy trying to jump a red light at a pedestrain crossing. My laddie was walking about a foot in front of me and the cyclist came zooming in between cars and braked with his front wheel about two inches in front of me just missing me and, more luckily, the boy. I said, a bit under my breathe so the laddie couldn't hear, "You're supposed to stop at a red light, you ******* idiot." The pricelss reply was "It's OK, I'm on a bike." Mind boggles. I think he got the message when I finished off with "The bike will be on you if you don't move the **** back now." He moved back behind the line.

Let's face it, whether it's a bike or a car the size of some people's egos mean they shouldn't be in charge of Meccano set.

[speedy_gonzales]

Red lights don't apply to cyclists, at least not down in London. It's funny but the locals just seem to get on with things. Green light-cyclist goes, amber light-cyclist goes, red light-cyclist goes!

[--------]

That's the crowd I have an issue with, (30's to 40's predominantly male) especially at weekends when they ride around en-masse three abreast like they are on the Tour de France.

The "I have as much right to be on the road as you" brigade.

That particular crowd even refuse to use cycle paths and lanes, choosing instead to ride in the middle of the road, holding other road users (who have paid for the privilege) up. They also lack the decency to use hand signals and to give way properly.

I also once had one, male screaming at me "get oot ma ******g way" when walking along the pavement one day in Stirling!!

Having said that I do think that every time a new road is built it should have cycle lanes as in Holland Germany automatically included in the build.

BTW this rant is not aimed at the lone cyclist heading to work each day on his/her bike, who rides in a safe manner observing the highway code.


I know him - (he IS a him, I think, but it's hard to say what with the goggles and funny hat and all) - and he's OK. The exception that proves the rule, in fact.

But ONE exception among thousands?

Though I have to say that there's one lot worse than the lycra-freaks.

I was once stuck behind a gaggle of competitors in one of those swimming-running-cycling super-races up in Sutherland.

Stuck behind them for about 3 miles of the A9.

From where I was situated, they appeared to be dressed solely in tight orange Speedos.

They were male. :sick:

[HiBremian]

Cycling here in Bremen is like being on another planet to the UK - there's proper cycling infrastructure, more so than in Berlin, and it's actually quicker and easier to get around the city by bicycle than by car. When I'm in the UK I'll use a pavement if it's the safets thing to do, simply because the's usually no safe infrastructure available. Most people in the UK can't get their head round this, but imagine that all our streets were built without pavements, what would pedestrians do? Yes, there are idiots on bikes like everything else, but I'm pretty sure that most pavement cyclists are there for safety reasons.

[speedy_gonzales]

Cycling here in Bremen is like being on another planet to the UK - there's proper cycling infrastructure, more so than in Berlin, and it's actually quicker and easier to get around the city by bicycle than by car. When I'm in the UK I'll use a pavement if it's the safets thing to do, simply because the's usually no safe infrastructure available. Most people in the UK can't get their head round this, but imagine that all our streets were built without pavements, what would pedestrians do? Yes, there are idiots on bikes like everything else, but I'm pretty sure that most pavement cyclists are there for safety reasons.
Fun and Games (http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/subsites/exhibitionroad.aspx). Was down there a couple of weeks back, obviously it's an unusually wide road but the principle is the same. Not just the cars, but ALL users were extremely cautious/observant and it seemed to work!